YELLAPPA Vs. YELLAVVA KOM SUBRAY GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has presented this petition, aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, allowing the appeal of respondent-I and setting aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner, by which he had declared the sale of certain agricultural lands in favour of respondent as invalid.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief are as follow: 7 acres 12 guntas of land in block No. 72 (C.S No. 104) of Gadiyal Village in Haliyal Taluk was granted to the petitioner under the Land Grant Rules, by the Asst. Commissioner, Karwar, dated 25-5-1959 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. There was also a non alienation clause attached to the grant. The condition was that the petitioner should not sell the land granted to him within a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The land so granted to the petitioner in the year 1959 was sold in auction on 5-6-1968 by the Asst. Commissioner for recovering the takavi loan taken by the petitioner from the Government. Respondent-1 purchased the land in the auction held by the Asst. Commissioner for recovering the loan due from petitioner. After the coming into force of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act of 1978, (for short 'the Act') the petitioner made an application before the Asst. Commissioner, Karwar subdivision, for setting aside the sale in favour of respondent-1. The objection of respondent-1 was that the provisions of the Act ware not attracted for the reason that the sale was by the Government for recovering its dues and therefore, the sale could not be regarded as void under Section 4 of the Act. The objection was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the sale of the land by the Government was also rendered invalid.

(3.) Respondent-1 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Respondent-1 contended before the appellate authority that the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 which provided that sale in execution of a decree or award of any Court or authority also falls within the purview of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, was not attracted to the case for the reason that the sale in the present case was by the Government itself and was not pursuant to any decree or award or order having the force of decree or award made at the instance of any individual. The contention of the petitioner however was that even the sale effected by the Government through the order of the Assistant Commissioner was covered by Sub-section (3) of Section 4 and therefore the Assistant Commissioner was right in declaring the sale invalid.